Forum:New Administrators 2014/Controversy
The beginning of the voting progress became very suspicious to me. Eventually I did some research to see if there actually was a problem, coming across a major issue. Other users were pestering, threatening, or bribing other users to vote for them. The suspects so far have been users Staw-Hat Luffy and possibly Roranoa zoro. I was first aware by getting a screenshot of Staw pestering other users to vote for him. This was mainly on the One Piece Skype chat. He even changed the user rights of OnePieceNation on a different wiki so that he would gain his vote. He wrote it on his talk page, eventually trying to delete the evidence, but made a mistake. He left some evidence behind on his contribution page. He even asked inactive users to vote for him. All the evidence I gathered is here. But I forgot to include that he even went to other wikis, such as the Fairy Tale wiki, and asked them to vote for him. He tried to convince other users to not vote for the other nominations, especially by belittling JustSomeDude... and I. These actions are not acceptable, especially when we are trying to choose three of the future admins. 01:55, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Discussion This is totally unacceptable. It's a clear and obvious violation of our poll rules. The fact that Staw tried to delete that message for OPN shows that he clearly knew the rules before he started scheming. I don't know really what else to say other than voter corruption should not be tolerated in any form. (It's really bad to see it from a user who's supposed to be a chat mod too...) In the short term, I think we need to focus on how we move forward from here with the election. Do we just void all the votes for Staw and Roa, or do we just redo the whole thing? And what about people like OPN who weren't just asked to vote, but made deals with the candidates? Do we remove their other voters? 02:07, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Since there seems to be compelling evidence on foul play, these unscrupulous candidates should be removed from consideration immediately. The voting process should be halted, until we weed out everyone possible. We can then restart the polls. 02:09, October 3, 2014 (UTC) From what is shown is that it was only Staw. The one I saw of Rora was just making fun of Staw's post about it. SeaTerror (talk) 02:11, October 3, 2014 (UTC) For fuck's sake. I'm not even going to listen to this shit. Anyone found trying to strongarm votes will be disqualified and subject to the possibility of banishment without forum. This applies to all acts past, present, and future. This is non-negotiable. 02:12, October 3, 2014 (UTC) It depends on what you mean by "past". We can't ban people for doing something before it was even a rule. SeaTerror (talk) 02:15, October 3, 2014 (UTC) :Irrelevant to this discussion now, ST. This forum is about events that happened long after the rule existed. Don't get distracted by DP's rage at the accused. 02:24, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Okay, fuck the edit conflicts. So we have evidence on Staw. But if there's no evidence on Roa, then he stays. If he is indeed just making fun on Staw's post. We will have to restart the entire poll now, since 13 people voted for Staw. 02:16, October 3, 2014 (UTC) I take my vote away from Staw Joekido (talk) 02:18, October 3, 2014 (UTC) There is no need to restart the entire poll. Many people just voted for him. SeaTerror (talk) 02:18, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Okay, so those 13 people get one more vote. Staw is removed (possibly banned). Do we have evidence on Roa? 02:21, October 3, 2014 (UTC) I don't have any evidence of Roa so far, but he could have been smarter about erasing any evidence leading back to him. 02:23, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Keep an eye on Roa, but we shouldn't do anything to him. He is innocent, until proven guilty. Now Staw... BAN HIM! Nobody700 (talk) 02:26, October 3, 2014 (UTC) So remove all of Staw's votes and all voters who cast him poll, vote for someone else. 02:27, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Should we also remove his rights? He is suppose to be an role model to other users with his current rights. 02:33, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Anyone thinks he deserves a chance to explain himself before evoking the ban and right removal? If not, we can go straight for it. 02:35, October 3, 2014 (UTC) This is some secondhand evidence (Jade can't post it right now, so I'm doing it for her) and the other person in the screenshot wants to remain anonymous, as far as I know. But this is evidence against Roa. Even though I voted for Roa, I'd say the better option is to not allow people to change their votes. We just don't know who's vote was corrupted and who's was not. DP made the rule in advance that votes can't be changed, so people should have known in advance. If you're like me and were not asked to vote for Staw or Roa but did it anyway, tough shit, I guess. This is what happens when the system is broken by others who are too immature to handle it. 02:36, October 3, 2014 (UTC) Yata, I'd say there's no reason to allow Staw to keep his rights now (inc his rollback rights) as he could use those to cause harm in a Gal-like rampage. But he should be allowed to try and defend himself from ban. 02:38, October 3, 2014 (UTC) I feel that Staw should be demoted from a chat moderator to a regular user, he clearly blatantly disregarded the rules, and as such, is unfit to be a chat moderator, someone who is supposed to enforce the rules, not break them. We should wait for him to explain himself before banning him though. 02:39, October 3, 2014 (UTC) So Roa has evidence against him too? Well, Staw and Roa did vote for others, should we nullify their votes? 02:42, October 3, 2014 (UTC) :Absolutely. 02:42, October 3, 2014 (UTC)